Chief Justice John Roberts is the most hated man in the United States of America today. He will be hated forever by strict constructionalists, but he will not be hated by conservatives reasonably versed in Supreme Court rulings, they will simply dislike him. After all, Justice Roberts is on solid Constitutional ground.

Most people have never heard of James Kent. He was a professor at Columbia University Law School after which he became chief justice of New Yorks Supreme Court. Law students are introduced to him early in their schooling, then forget him as soon as possible. They shouldnt, and it appears justice Roberts didnt.

In his introduction to a lecture delivered in 1794, professor Kent stated, It is regarded as an undisputed principle in American Politics, that the different departments of Government should be kept as far as possible separate and distinct. Which is another way of saying, in this country we have three branches of government which are supposed to keep out of each others fundamental business. The Legislature legislates while the Executive executes while the Judiciary adjudicates. Ever since John Marshall established the principal of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, the system has been such that the supposedly co-equal branches were expected to respect each others territory only to cross boundaries when one or the other seriously stepped out of line.

As onerous and offensive as Obamacare is, neither the President nor Congress stepped out of line in their fundamental duties when structuring and implementing it. One could argue they tested the limits of their respective authorities, but they were nevertheless doing their jobs. And though Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer can all be lumped into a category of political jurists who have little respect for the Constitution, Roberts decision cannot be held in so little regard as theirs.

The history and tradition of our American system of government is such that the Supreme Court has, for the most part, been loath to tamper with Congress primary function, a purely political one. That he forced a peculiar interpretation of arguably the worst legislation in Congress history is totally consistent with what the Court has done throughout its history. Justice Roberts merely reminded us that Congress authority is paramount, political and partisan, and that we get what we elect. In point of fact, hes right, our remedy is not in his court, but in the election process.

Justice John Bannister Gibson wrote a dissenting opinion in Eakin v. Raub, 12 Sargeant & Rawle 330 (Pa., 1825) which speaks directly to the issue, I am of [the] opinion that it rests with the people, in whom full and absolute sovereign power resides, to correct abuses in legislation, by instructing their representatives to repeal the obnoxious act. To which should be added, and if their representatives dont, then it is incumbent on the people to roust them from office and elect representatives who will. This is our fight, not John Roberts, and we should accept the challenge without whining over his decision.

Throughout human history in law and politics, one thing is absolutely clear, when people have had enough, they act against their government, not with it. The United States of America was designed to facilitate, if not encourage that action. The Constitution assaults any contrary notion of our right to pursue a change in the way our government operates. Roberts did nothing more than remind us to use that right. If we do not, its our fault, not his.

So judicial review is now a thing of the past. Goodbye Marbury v Madison. This means we only need the SCOTUS a few weeks a year for obscure interstate squabbles. Fine with me. I am tired of this ineffectual blackrobed oligarchy form of gubbermint.

I have often railed against the fact that the nine in black are our real rulers, with lifetime terms and no way to blunt them short of a constitutional amendment which is the same as to say no way to blunt them at all.

It appears that based on this ruling and the Arizona one that Roberts has decided his court is going to be a do-nothing court, deferring to the people's elected representatives in congress. In many ways, this is good and long overdue. However, if when presented with unconstitutional legislative overreaches Roberts is so determined to uphold them that he unilaterally grants congress new powers then he is a dangerous character indeed, and has set himself as the real king of America.

Alas, America, you had a good run.

56
posted on 06/29/2012 10:50:12 AM PDT
by pepsi_junkie
(Who is John Galt?)

“Justice Roberts merely reminded us that Congress authority is paramount, political and partisan, and that we get what we elect.”

Utter BS! We are not a democracy. We do not let pass whatever the mob on capitol hill declares. I’ve long thought conservatives were wrong to fetishize judicial restraint. For judicial review is among the fundamental and necessary tasks of the court. What’s improper is when they act like Congress and unilaterally rewrite laws (as with busing) or invent rights that don’t exist (as with abortion). Striking down laws that violate the Constitution is not such an overreach, nor is asserting the existence of rights that do exist.

This tradition that’s grown up of deferring to the wisdom of Congress and not even looking into whether laws are constitutional or not unless they prima facie threaten the parts of the Constitution SCOTUS has arbitrarily decided it likes to defend (strict scrutiny, rational basis, and all that nonsense) is just plain wrong. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong. There’s no reason in law or morality, in heaven or on earth, to defer to Congress. There’s no reason to give the constitutionality of laws the benefit of the doubt.
There’s no reason whatsoever for Roberts to rewrite the law (it may be a penalty, but *if* it were a tax, then it’d be okay) in order to rule in favor of it. There’s no reason to pretend that the taxing power is unlimited.

Amendments are part of the constitution, including the income tax amendment. He's got to uphold that as much as the rest of the constitution. Why not try to repeal the income tax amendment? So many are enraged by all this. Now would be a good time to try.

The author of this piece of trash can shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. Lawyers have taken this country down the path of destruction. Please don’t use the word “Justice” when referring to the traitor John Roberts.

“Also, since the Obamacare (tax) law did not originate in the House, it is illegal.”

It would be illegal either way, since tax or no it spent money and spending bills have to originate in the house. That’s why they went through the charade of gutting an unrelated bill and “deeming” it to have passed the house.

I despise him. I don’t care what kind of chess game he thinks he was playing, it was within his power to shoot down this unconstitutional pos, in fact it’s in job description. He didn’t have to find ways to “finesse” it for the sake of politics or anything else-it was his JOB to protect the Constitution and we the people from unconstitutionality, and if this doesn’t fit the bill then nothing does. He and his defenders can spin like a top, he didn’t do his job when he needed to do it like never before.

“Amendments are part of the constitution, including the income tax amendment. He’s got to uphold that as much as the rest of the constitution. Why not try to repeal the income tax amendment? So many are enraged by all this. Now would be a good time to try.”

In what way is the penalty an income tax? It doesn’t tax income, it taxes people for existing without insurance coverage. It’s a poll tax.

When even Kennedy would have dismissed this pos, then Roberts is really reaching, stretching to the breaking point, to try to defend this on any grounds. Fricken politics, I hate these people for playing games with real people’s lives and freedom. I wish they could all be dismissed at the push of a button-we could do better choosing from the phone book, as said Buckley.

Its his job to judge whether what Congress does complies with the Constitution.

Exactly, he and his defenders can just stop it with trying to pretend he was on some higher moral plane by tossing back to Congress and we the people have to vote for different reps. If it never happened that we would need protection from power-hungry politcians no matter who elected them, he wouldn't have a job.

So because politicians are elected by we the people, it can never happen that they’ll try to inflict unconstitutional legislation on us against our will beause after all we elected them? The what do we need him and the Supreme Court for? After all, we must have agreed beforehand to whatever any politician inflicts on us, after all we elected them. He’s a disingenuous lying pos.

I perhaps could've understood Roberts taking the position that Obamacare should be upheld by SCOTUS and any objections should be dealt with via the election/legislative process - as he touched on in his decision.

I obviously would've understood had he sided instead with the 4 justices that dissented by stating that it is unconstitutional as written and should go back to Congress.

I find it unconscionable that he then 're-wrote' the key part by inserting the "tax" concept in order to find constitutionality where none existed prior.

If so, I will completely retract this. I am just basing it upon numerous other articles pointing out that this could (not definitely) but could have at least some good for us despite the horrible reality of the law staying.

In what way is the penalty an income tax? It doesnt tax income, it taxes people for existing without insurance coverage. Its a poll tax.

The mechanism of extracting the penalty is to draw money away from one's income. It's a tax, a burden, ON income. No taxable income means no payment.

Yeah, now you're talking like Roberts. People can have taxes levied on them without having any income at all. If someone is jobless and without any revenue stream and doesn't have health insurance then he faces the penalty of Obamacare. If it's a "tax," then it's a tax regardless of his state of income; therefore, it's not an income tax. It's a "tax" based on whether or not he did something else, that is, purchase an insurance plan. If you buy one, you don't pay the "tax." If you don't, you pay the "tax." You could call it a non-sales tax.

This is our fight, not John Roberts, and we should accept the challenge without whining over his decision.

Yet another of the many dumb-ass remarks regarding Roberts's ploy. Roberts basically said that if he were to decide things based on how Congress and the President described them (It's not a tax; it's a penalty), Obamacare would have to be considered unconstitutional. Then he decided that he didn't want it to be unconstitutional so he interpreted it to mean exactly what they were all claiming it did NOT mean in order to give to them what they were wanting all along. This is not being a good judge. This is sophomoric word games designed to arrive at a predetermined end no matter what. He pulled a bigger wad of dreck out of his butt on this one than Blackmun did in Roe v Wade.

Call it a poll tax, because that’s what it is. It is a head tax directly laid on individuals without regard to their income. Poll taxes are illegal. Therefore, so is Obamacare. (It’s illegal for other reasons, too; this is just one.)

“He pulled a bigger wad of dreck out of his butt on this one than Blackmun did in Roe v Wade.”

Yes, because at least according to the 9th amendment there are such things as unspecified reserved rights. So the Roe argument is over whether abortion is or is not a right, not whether or not it’s in the Constitution. Obamacare, whether the penalty is a tax or not, goes against explicit portions of the Constitution, as well as its overall logic. Rewriting the law to make it constitutional goes against the most basic priciples of what it means to be a judge, as everyone understands it.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.